Finnegan v. Legal Shield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN MATTHEW FINNEGAN; Case No.: 21-CV-773 JLS (KSC) FINNEGAN LLC; and LIQUID EVENTS

WORLDWIDE LLC, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

Plaintiffs,

FAILURE TO STATE CLAIM v. UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE

GRANTED PURSUANT TO

LEGAL SHIELD, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND Defendant. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE IN

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT

ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT

On April 22, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff Sean Matthew Finnegan’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed Plaintiffs Sean Matthew Finnegan, Finnegan LLC, and Liquid Events Worldwide LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Complaint as frivolous due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See generally ECF No. 4 (“Order”). In so doing, the Court granted Plaintiffs forty-five days in which to file an amended complaint. See id. at 6. The Order clearly stated that, “should Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within forty-five (45) days, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and their failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment.” Id. (citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005)) (emphasis in original). Although more than forty-five days have passed since the issuance of the Order, Plaintiffs have not filed an }amended complaint in accordance with the Order.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

As this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. g ||Dated: June 10, 2021 psi L. Lo meeaitie- on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 1]